Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3765
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Dharmapuri Versus
A.T. Karunanidhi
C.M.A.No.587 of 2005 & C.M.P.No.3086 of 2005
Decided On : 16-09-2009
For the Appellant:P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V. Kumaravelan, Advocate.
The court confirmed negligence based on evidence and deemed the awarded compensation to be reasonable, fair, and equitable.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Negligence - Sections 279 and 337 of IPC - [279, 337] - The court confirmed the negligence of the driver of the corporation bus based on evidence and awarded compensation for injuries sustained by the claimant. The quantum of compensation was deemed reasonable, fair, and equitable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the award.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and a co-passenger were injured in a road accident involving a corporation bus driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioner for the sustained injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the negligence of the bus driver based on evidence and deemed the awarded compensation to be reasonable, fair, and equitable. The appeal was dismissed, and the award was confirmed.
Issues: The issues included determining the negligence of the bus driver and the quantum of compensation the petitioner was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the confirmation of negligence based on evidence and the reasonableness of the awarded compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was confirmed. The appellant Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the balance compensation amount within six weeks.
The appellant/respondent has preferred the above appeal in C.M.A.No.587 of 2005 against the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.612 of 2003 dated 29.06.2004, awarding a total compensation of Rs.34,920/ together with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of payment.
2. Aggrieved by this Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant/State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court.
3. The facts of the case are as follows;
i) On 211. 2002, the petitioner, Mr. A.T. Karunanidhi, was proceeding in his TVS 50 XL Moped bearing registration No. TN 29 B 0273 along with one Krishnan on the extreme left side of the road following the traffic rules. At about 16.30 hours, the respondent transport corporation bus bearing registration No.TN 29 N 0781 which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly, hit the TVS 50 XL Moped. With the result, the petitioner and Krishnan, who travelled in the vehicle were thrown out of the vehicle to a distance and sustained grievous injuries. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident happened. The Kariamangalam Police Station had registered a case against the driver of the corporation bus in Cr.No.1384/2002 on an alleged offence under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
ii) Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital at Palacode for initial treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Headquarters hospital at Dharmapuri, wherein he was admitted as inpatient. Later, he took treatment at Government Hospitals at Palacode and Dharmapuri as inpatients. In the said accident, the petitioner has lost one frontal tooth in the lower jaw and his 4th and 5th right ribs were fractured and sustained grievous injuries. For his treatment, he spent more than Rs.35,000/-. Due to this accident, the petitioner is unable to do any normal day-to-day work as before. Hence, the petitioner has originally claimed a compensation of Rs.8,51,500/-, but the petitioner restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/-against the respondent/State Transport Corporation.
4. The appellant/State Transport Corporation has filed counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner, stating that they did not admit the petitioners occupation and earning and expenses incurred for medical treatment. Further, the Transport Corporation denied that the accident was caused due to the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. At the time of accident, the petitioner had driven the TVS 50 XL Moped with the pillion rider in an uncontrollable speed, in a negligent manner in a drunken condition, lost his control and dashed against the Transport Corporation Bus. Due to carelessness of the petitioner, the said accident has happened. So, the driver of the bus is not responsible for the said accident. In the said accident, two vehicles were involved. So, the petitioners vehicles insurer is also a necessary party, but the insurance company has not been included as a necessary party in the claim petition. Contributory negligence has to be taken in the said accident. Further, the petitioner did not have any valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the appellant corporation denied the claim of the petitioner.
5. The Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal framed two issues namely;
1) whether the accident happened due to the negligence and high speed of the driver of the corporation bus. If so,
2) What is the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to?
6. On the side of the respondent/claimant three witnesses were examined namely, the petitioner as PW1 and the Co-passenger, one Krishnan as PW2 and one Doctor Elangovan as PW3 and five exhibits namely P1 to P5 were marked. On the appellant side One Rasalaiyan was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.
7. On an oral and documentary evi
